지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Discourse markers, while obviously meaningful, don’t affect the truth conditions of the utterances they occur in. Because of their characteristic like this, they have attracted the interest of many researchers and have been studied from various points of views. So now there is no agreement on how they are to be defined or how they function.
The purpose of this study is to analyse English discourse marker but as encoding procedural meaning, whose function is to guide pragmatic inference rather than to form part of the truth-conditional content. Following Fraser(2006), this study suggests that the core meaning of but, which is procedural, is to signal simple contrast of general nature. As an attempt to prove it, this study shows that the S1 message, the target, with which the direct S2 message is contrasted may be direct, implied, presupposed, or entailed message of S1. Particularly, this study suggests that the more specific interpretations of discourse marker but in utterances are triggered by a function of the interpretations of S1 and S2 and linguistic and nonlinguistic context as well as the core meaning of but.
In conclusion, this study shows that Fraser(2006)’s procedural contrastive analysis can be an alternative to offer a better explanation of the meaning and interpretation of discourse marker but when S1, S2 in Fraser(2006) are replaced by C1, C2. in the analysis suggested by this study.
The purpose of this study is to analyse English discourse marker but as encoding procedural meaning, whose function is to guide pragmatic inference rather than to form part of the truth-conditional content. Following Fraser(2006), this study suggests that the core meaning of but, which is procedural, is to signal simple contrast of general nature. As an attempt to prove it, this study shows that the S1 message, the target, with which the direct S2 message is contrasted may be direct, implied, presupposed, or entailed message of S1. Particularly, this study suggests that the more specific interpretations of discourse marker but in utterances are triggered by a function of the interpretations of S1 and S2 and linguistic and nonlinguistic context as well as the core meaning of but.
In conclusion, this study shows that Fraser(2006)’s procedural contrastive analysis can be an alternative to offer a better explanation of the meaning and interpretation of discourse marker but when S1, S2 in Fraser(2006) are replaced by C1, C2. in the analysis suggested by this study.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론 및 이론적 배경
Ⅱ. 선행 연구들
Ⅲ. 대안으로서의 절차적 대조 분석
Ⅳ. 결론
인용문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (24)
참고문헌 신청
1. [단행본] - Blakemore, D. / 1987 / Semantic Constraints on Relevance / Blackwell
2. [단행본] - Blakemore, D. / 1992 / Understanding Utterance / Blackwell
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Blakemore, D. / 2000 / Indicators and Procedures: Nevertheless and But / Journal of Linguistics 36 : 463 ~ 486
4. [단행본] - Blakemore, D. / 2002 / Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers / Cambridge University Press
5. [단행본] - Cummings, L. / 2010 / The Pragmatics Encyclopedia / Roultedge
2. [단행본] - Blakemore, D. / 1992 / Understanding Utterance / Blackwell
3. [학술지(정기간행물)] - Blakemore, D. / 2000 / Indicators and Procedures: Nevertheless and But / Journal of Linguistics 36 : 463 ~ 486
4. [단행본] - Blakemore, D. / 2002 / Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers / Cambridge University Press
5. [단행본] - Cummings, L. / 2010 / The Pragmatics Encyclopedia / Roultedge
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-840-000614265